CA Unpub Decisions

The court sentenced Burchell to an aggregate state prison term of 13 years 4 months. For count one it imposed four years (the middle term of two years which it doubled because of the prior strike). It added consecutive terms of two years because of the hate crime finding ( 422.75, subd. (a)), five years for the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancement, and one year for the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement. On count two it imposed a 16-month sentence (one-third the mid term, which it doubled because of the prior strike). It ordered the sentence on count two to be consecutive to the sentence on count one. It struck the enhancements under section 667.5 subdivision (b) as to count two. On count three it imposed a sentence of 365 days in the Ventura County jail to run concurrently with state prison time. Court conclude that substantial evidence supports the conviction on count one and the trial court properly imposed consecutive sentences on counts one and two. But it erred by imposing two enhancements for a prior conviction under sections 667, subdivision (a)(1) and 667.5, subdivision (b). We strike the one year sentence under section 667.5, subdivision (b). In all other respects Court affirm.

Angela T. appeals from the juvenile court order terminating family reunification services and setting a permanent plan hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.) She asserts the trial court and the Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Court affirm.

Plaintiff, Warren Wong, individually and as trustee of the Wong Family Trust (hereafter Wong), appeals from the judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained the demurrer of defendants, City of Stockton and the Stockton Redevelopment Agency (hereafter the City) to Wongs complaint for inverse condemnation, without leave to amend.

The complaint alleges that Wong owns two parcels of property, one had a building on it, the other one had a paved parking lot. As part of defendants plan to redevelop the downtown area of the city, defendants began condemning certain properties but discovered that process was too costly. In an effort to reduce their costs, defendants began demolishing the improvements on the targeted properties after issuing building code violations and recording Notices to Abate, which alleged that the code violations rendered the structures unsafe. In furtherance of that scheme, the City demolished Wongs building and parking lot.

In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) Court therefore deny her requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Were Viviana Z.'s counsel to request leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, the request would be denied.
The appeal is dismissed.

Defendant and appellant Teeon Richardson appeals a jury determination that the underlying offenses, robbery and burglary, were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that the crimes were gang related and committed with the requisite specific intent. Court affirm.

After her motion to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied, defendant entered a change of plea of no contest to violating Health and Safety Code section 11378, possession of methamphetamine for sale, on the condition that there would be a three year lid on any state prison sentence and that the prior prison term allegation would be dismissed. She was subsequently sentenced to the upper term of three years in state prison. The sole basis for appeal is the denial of the suppression motion.

A jury found Eddie Henry Zarate guilty of attempted theft from an elder adult. (Pen. Code, 664, 368, subd. (d), 484.) On a stipulation to a bifurcation and jury trial waiver of the alleged prior, the court found a serious felony prior allegation true. ( 667, subd. (d)(1), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1).) At the probation and sentencing hearing, the court imposed, inter alia, a three-year, double the midterm sentence ( 18, 368, subd. (d), 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)) and a $900 probation report fee ( 1203.1b). The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant, Gerardo Barrera, was charged by criminal complaint filed August 8, 2006,[1]with nine counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, 211, 212, subd. (c)),[2]two counts of attempted second degree robbery ( 211, 212, subd. (c), 664), one count of assault with a deadly weapon or by means of force likely to great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of battery with serious bodily injury ( 243, subd. (d)). Pursuant to a plea agreement, on September 27, the court granted the prosecutions motions to amend the complaint, and appellant pled no contest to three counts of grand theft from a person ( 487, subd. (c); counts 2, 4, 5) and individual counts of second degree robbery (count 1) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury ( 245, subd. (a)(1); count 8). On November 2, the court imposed a prison term of five years, consisting of the two-year lower term on the robbery, eight months on each of the grand theft counts, and one year on the assault. The court awarded appellant 102 days of presentence credits. Appellant did not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause ( 1237.5).
Appellants appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court independently review the record. (Peoplev.Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.

Appellant Christian G., a minor, admitted allegations contained in a juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602), filed in October 2006, that he committed violations of Penal Code sections 12101, subdivision (a)(1) (minor in possession of a firearm) and 148, subdivision (a)(1) (resisting a peace officer). At a January 2007 disposition hearing, the court ordered Christian committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Juvenile Justice (DCRJJ), formerly known as the California Youth Authority (CYA), and declared his maximum period of physical confinement (MPPC) to be nine years four months, which was calculated by aggregating the terms on previously sustained petitions.
On appeal, Christian contends the juvenile court erred in setting his MPPC as nine years four months, as the four month term imposed for count two of the January 2006 petition must be stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. As Court explain, we agree with Christian and order the four month sentence stayed.

A jury convicted Terrell Jerome Reed of being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of Penal Code[1]section 12316, subdivision (b)(1). Reed admitted allegations that he had a prior strike conviction ( 667, subds. (b) (i) and 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)), and had served a prior prison term ( 667.5, subd. (b)). The court imposed a 32-month prison sentence (the 16-month mitigated term doubled under the three strikes law) and struck the one year prior prison term enhancement under section 1385. On appeal, Reed contends (1) his statements to a police officer were elicited in violation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436and (2) the court abused its discretion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, in refusing to dismiss his prior strike. Court affirm the judgment.

On August 29, 2006, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Bakersfield police officers were dispatched to an apartment complex regarding a possible burglary. After being advised that a subject identified as appellant, Victor Clayton Flye, had fled from the complex on foot, the officers established a perimeter and took Flye into custody. During the investigation, Flye admitted he broke into an apartment belonging to Jim and Katherine Francis and took a purse and a wallet. Flye also admitted entering the garage of another apartment.
Following independent review of the record Court find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant was convicted of rape and forcible genital penetration with a foreign object. He contends the trial judges statements during voir dire and the prosecutors comments during closing argument infringed his right to a fair trial. He also argues the court prejudicially violated his right to a jury trial when it imposed the upper term sentence for his offenses. Court reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Defendant David Allan Hayder was convicted of possessing methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he contends he was not a felon at the time he possessed the firearm because his felony convictions had been reduced to misdemeanors and dismissed. Therefore, he asserts, insufficient evidence supported the conviction. Finding merit in defendants contention, Court reverse and remand for resentencing.

A modification decision.